Colorado Breaking News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, Jobs

Blog: The Denver Post's political and editorial writers dish daily on local, state and national politics and policy.

WASHINGTON — Colorado farmers stand to lose millions of dollars a year in direct subsidy payments for corn, wheat and soybean crops as part of agriculture reform heading to the U.S. Senate in a couple of months.

And they are OK with that.

In increasingly tight times for the federal government, the fact that farmers get direct payments for growing commodity crops has lost popular support from just about everyone.

The House GOP budget proposal last year shed direct payments to farmers. And several Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee — including Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. — say the time has come to end the program in its current form.

Colorado received more than $4 billion in subsidies, including direct payments, from 1995 to 2010.

Farmers say they want to do their part to help the nation's gaping debt.

"We feel like at this time, with the economy, it's time to end it," said 28-year-old Nathan Weathers, a fourth-generation farmer in Yuma County, whose family receives about $50,000 a year in direct payments. "Times have been pretty good in agriculture, and we've been pretty fortunate, and this is kind of where we can do our part to kind of help give back."

In exchange, farmers, and their powerful lobby — the Farm Bureau — are pushing a government-backed insurance program that would safeguard farmers should they be plagued by drought, pests or something worse.

Advertisement

"My position has always been that we need a strong safety net for agriculture," said Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who represents the most agriculturally rich district in Colorado. Gardner's district has received $3 billion in subsidies, including direct payments and disaster money, since 1995.

Bennet — the only member of Colorado's delegation whose family is receiving ag subsidies, according to financial disclosures — said that on several agriculture listening tours, he heard farmers wanted reform.

"When asked to prioritize farm safety-net priorities, Colorado farmers have repeatedly told him that direct payments take second place to strong crop insurance and disaster programs," said Adam Bozzi, spokesman for Bennet.

Bennet's wife, Susan Daggett, has received about $20,000 since 1995 in subsidies from her family's farm in Arkansas. The direct payments go to the people farming the land, but the Daggett family gets dividends from the farmers, Bozzi said.

Colorado's agriculture industry is the state's second or third most important economic driver, depending on the year. Gov. John Hickenlooper touted it at a recent State of the State speech, praising the industry for helping buoy everyone else through the recession.

"It's critical to keep American agriculture strong," said Hickenlooper's agriculture commissioner, John Salazar. "If we ever become dependent on another nation to provide us food, we'll be in trouble."

Relatively speaking, farmers are doing well right now. The price of their land — particularly in Colorado — has risen sharply at the same time the price of commodities has yielded farmers handsome annual incomes. (The price of corn, for example, has more than tripled in just seven years.)

In addition, some farmers have taken advantage of their land in new ways, such as leasing out fields for natural gas or oil; others are receiving rental payments from Xcel Energy for having windmills on their properties.

"The Farm Bureau has moved toward endorsing more of a risk-management type policy and away from direct payments," said Brent Boydston, a vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau. "We're definitely willing to do our part, but we don't want to be cut disproportional to other programs in the federal budget."

Direct payments to farmers started in 1933 because the federal government wanted to help family farms survive and keep farmers producing enough diverse crops for Americans during the Depression.

The Farm Bill, which allocates roughly $90 billion a year to child-nutrition programs, food stamps, agriculture programs, farmers and conservation, is up for reauthorization this year. Though agriculture only composes about one-third of the spending, direct subsidies run about $5 billion a year.

While a big overhaul is unlikely in an election year, those with various quibbles about how the money is allocated are optimistic that 2013 will be ripe for wholesale changes.

Environmental groups tracking the issue urge subsidizing some farms but broadening them beyond the top commodities to local food systems. They also are urging Congress to create more incentives for farmers to conserve more of their land.

"Direct payments are completely unjustifiable. They don't serve any purpose in regard to a safety net," said David DeGennaro, an analyst for the Environmental Working Group. "We want to make sure the next farm bill has strong conservation funding. . . . It's extremely important to protect water and soil and wildlife."

Lockheed says object part of 'sensor technology' testing that ended ThursdayWhat the heck is that thing? It's fair to assume that question was on the minds of many people who traveled along Colo. 128 south of Boulder this week if they happened to catch a glimpse of what appeared to be a large, silver projectile perched alongside the highway and pointed north toward town.

PARIS (AP) — Bye, New York! Ciao, Milan! Bonjour, Paris! The world's largest traveling circus of fashion editors, models, buyers and journalists has descended on the French capital, clutching their metro maps and city guides, to cap the ready-to-wear fashion season. Full Story